Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

Tea party: They’re anti-politics, not just anti-government

Mitch McConnell may have to contend with at least five new tea party senators. |
AP Photo
Close

The people’s complaint is not quite the same as that of the tea party activists. In the September CBS News/New York Times Poll, 60 percent of Americans cited the economy or jobs as the biggest problem facing the country. Only 3 percent said the deficit. Is Obama giving us too much big government? Only 37 percent said yes; 56 percent said no.

The midterms of 2010 are shaping up as the Great Negative Election. Republicans, the tea party and the electorate are joining forces to send a message: This ain’t working.

Text Size

-

+

reset

It’s not unusual for voters to use midterms to send a message. In 2006, the message was, “Get out of Iraq.” In 2002, when Republicans enjoyed unexpected gains after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, former President Bill Clinton described the message as: “Strong and wrong beats weak and right.” In 1998, when Democrats made unexpected gains, the message was: “Leave Bill Clinton alone.”

This year is another protest vote. People are not voting for anything. Not for Republicans. In the CBS/Times Poll, the Republican Party has a more negative image than the Democratic Party. And not for the tea party. Only 20 percent express a favorable view of the tea party, and even fewer, 14 percent, said a tea party endorsement would make them more likely to support a candidate.

They’re voting against Congress and against the Democrats. The message? “Dude, where’s my job?”
Nonetheless, Republicans and tea party activists are likely to see the election as giving them a mandate. To do what? To obstruct.

When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, they tried the path of obstruction for a year. It led to a train wreck: the government shutdown. Eventually, Clinton and the Republican Congress figured out a way to work together. Clinton triangulated. Speaker Newt Gingrich cooperated.

What drove Clinton hatred in the 1990s wasn’t so much disagreement on policy. Republicans favored many of Clinton’s policies, such as welfare reform, free trade and a balanced budget. Conservatives hated Clinton because of his values. He was, as one explained, “a womanizing, Elvis-loving, truth-shading, noninhaling, draft-dodging, war-protesting, abortion-protecting, gay-promoting, gun-hating baby boomer.” In other words, a child of the 1960s.

So Republicans supported Clinton’s policies — and then they impeached him.

To tea party activists, collaboration with Obama’s policies means selling out. They will pressure Republican leaders to shun nonbelievers. To stand on principle and not compromise.

McConnell, like most senators, is a professional politician. Politicians make deals. They compromise. McConnell hasn’t had to do much of that as minority leader. If he were to become majority leader, that would change.

When tea party activists say they want to change Washington, what they mean is, they want to get rid of politics.

Bill Schneider is Hirst professor of public policy at George Mason University and a resident scholar at Third Way.

Oh, you mean the Bill Schneider that is also the political commentator for CNN? That Schneider. The official Obama cable outlet comes out against a GOP or Tea party movement win. What a major surprise. Liberal thinking Schneider gets an opinion piece but Politico doesn't think it necessary to mention his real employer?

"It’s not just that tea partiers are anti-government. All Republicans are anti-government

Well, I take exception to that among many other things in this article. But this is just a flat out lie. Republicans, Tea Partiers and fiscal and social conservatives are against BIG GOVERNMENT. We don't need or want a nanny state. We want to earn our money, pay our taxes, and live our lives with as much of what we earned as we can. We contribute to charity (not so much these days and it's going to get worse under the democrats), but don't take my tax money and spend it on welfare for people who are here illegally. Don't waste my money on bailing out a car company just to keep the unions happy. If the company isn't working properly because of huge wage and benefit packages and payments to people not even working - that's their and the unions problem. Go out of business or restructure and make the unions be reasonable and stop hurting all of us.

'McConnell, like most senators, is a professional politician. Politicians make deals. They compromise. McConnell hasn’t had to do much of that as minority leader. If he were to become majority leader, that would change.

Why do Politicians need to 'make deals'?? that is one of the things Americans are tired of. Our elected officials should represent the people, not 'make deals' with other politicians. ... Hurry up November, and watch Americans take a stand!! When tea party activists say they want to change Washington, what they mean is, they want to get rid of politics

Well the author got parts right even though he does not actually understand why he got it right. Is the Tea Party looking for an end to Politics? No. Is the Tea Party looking for an end to Politics as we know it, and how it is done? Yes.

The Tea Party does not have an issue with compromise, as long as the compromise:

A) DOES NOT increase the national debt B) DOES NOT increase spending with out cuts being made to other areas (aka the way Pay-Go is supposed to work) C) Is within the confines of what the Constitution allows for D) Does not expand the growth of the Federal Government E) Does not expand the power of the Federal Government F) Does not infringe of the "Individual" rights of Individuals G) Does not Infringe on the growth of Small Businesses H) Does Create a Fair Tax for ALL Americans I) Eliminates Federal Departments that are not needed, that should be controlled by the Individual states

There was a time when BOTH parties understood these values and principles. There was a time when they said "Our Generation needs to leave a better place for the next" and they actually acted in that manner. Our current President said "He will fundamentally change" the United States. We did not NEED a fundamental change, what we needed was a restoration of what made us the greatest nation on earth. A Place that was a HOPE for all the world to come to. Where nations looked upon us for leadership that was always fair and true.

We want to see that kind of change, a change back to a mindset where the individual could be a success or a failure. A place where we could dream grand dreams, a place where we could choose to live the life we wanted. That my friend is not the case any longer when we have:

a) Cigarettes being banned b) Soda machines in San Fransisco being banned of sugary sodas (Boston is taking it a step further) c) Trans Fats being removed because its NOT good for us d) NYC eliminating salt from restaurants e) The feds being able to tap our phones with out an order from a Judge f) The Feds looking to have access to our e-mails and text messages with out the order of a Judge g) Being forced to purchase healthcare by the Feds with the threat of a Fine or Jail time being imposed if we do not

The list goes on and on and on. So yes, there is a battle going on right now, but it is not just against a specific party, it is against Politics as we know it. The culture in Washington MUST change for the betterment of our nation, our future and our children.

When a Tea-Bagger conservative shrieks incessantly about "getting government out of their lives", the subliminal message they're sending is: "We're too stupid to know how government works and too lazy to figure it out".

Nice try professor, but if the problem with tea partiers is that they disavow the deal making and compromise impulses of professional politicians, why then isn't the same criticism applied to the administration for ramming it's agenda through without the slightest interest in compromise or deal making (except to buy a few critical votes)? It's a rhetorical question. The reason the same criticism doesn't apply to the administration is that disinterest in deal making and compromise does not distinguish politicians from regular folks. When it suits their purpose and they are in a position to do so, any politician will eschew dealing and compromise.

That is what Obama and his Congress did to advance their agenda, and the tea partiers don't like that agenda. It doesn't take much more than a glance at the signs displayed at tea party events to understand where they are coming from. Most of the signs object to policies, not political practices. As the professor aptly remarked, "it's the policies, stupid." He hit the nail on the head and didn't even recognize it!

Wow....It's shocking how you Tea Partiers can't actually read and comprehend sentences and follow along with logical thought process.

It's ALMOST as amusing as the fool on here who makes lists of what the Tea Party "will compromise" on. LOL. THOSE AREN'T COMPROMISES. Believe it or not, folks, there are people out there in this country who DON'T THINK EXACTLY LIKE YOU! Yeah! And that's why compromise is a necessary part of politics.

Because people who claim to have total and complete access to "The Truth" are usually thugs and dictators and idiots. People who can't take a step back and say, "Maybe I'm wrong on this..." Or "Maybe I don't have all the information here..." THOSE people will be the death of this country (which is not to say the left wing nut jobs don't have their fair share of "those" people, so don't get all upity on me)

It's also almost as amusing as the same fool who lists out "MORE POWER TO THE STATES!!!" "DOWN WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" and then makes a list of the "freedoms" that have been swiped away from him. The funny thing about the list is that most, if not all, WERE ENACTED ON A STATE OR LOCAL LEVEL! Not to mention most of them are just stupid. Last time I checked, cigarettes have NOT been banned. San Fran has banned high caloric sodas from being sold in vending machines on STATE OWNED property, not an outright ban. LOCAL counties and cities have banned trans fats because they aren't good for you...but you know what, you can still go to the grocery store and fry up as much crap as your little arteries can manage. Your freedom to die sooner than the rest of us is firmly in tact!

And as for "being forced to buy health care" it shows a genuine misunderstanding of what INSURANCE is. The nature of insurance is to take risk and spread it out. ALL insurance works this way. You are required to buy car insurance because, statistically speaking, you will get into a car accident at some point in your life. And the possible cost of that accident is spread out, both over your life time, AND among other insurance holders.

How does it make any sense to NOT have mandatory health insurance? Do you feel that, statistically speaking you will NEVER need health care? Because, hell, if you can prove that, or sign a document that says you will incur ALL costs of your healthcare and NOT file for bankruptcy ever because of health bills or wait until you get on Medicare, then, by all means, repeal that provision.

But you can't, can you? So someone else has to foot the bill because your "freedom" to not pay health insurance for health care you will ABSOLUTELY need at some point in your life is in tact.

Puh-lease.

By the way, this article doesn't have anything bad to say about the Tea Partiers so much as it predicts the professional politicians of the GOP will be unable to get anything accomplished if they should win a majority. Because since the beginning of this country (see Jefferson vs. Hamilton) the democratic process requires compromise and finding common ground, and Tea Partiers today show zero interest in that great democratic tradition.

If you cannot see the inherent logical contradiction (and I know you don't) then you are the reason why

I am all for the Tea Party doing whatever they do - shout, act a fool and carry racist signs. What I have an issue with is when they try to dictate who I support. One member told me to take a particular sign off my car because the person is not right for the country. I camly replied 'I would remove the sign when I no longer pay for my vehicle.' To which he said he would remove it for me. I dared him to touch my car - as crazy as he was, his better judgement prevailed. He walked away. How dare these imbeciles tell me who to support. They are going to walk up on the wrong person and try some nonsense and the tea party will turn into a blood bath.

The single thing that makes this country great is that it's framers knew the Constitution would withstand the test of time. We have survived world wars, assassinations, a resigning President, 18% Prime Rates, dot.com bubbles, and 911. We will survive this current economical scenario as well. Not with BIG government, not with massive stimulus bills, but with American ingenuity and creativeness. We can start November 2 to get government out of the way of the real recovery.

If the Tea Party wants to adhere to the Constitution, is that the one where I, as a woman can't vote, or the one before Civil Rights legislation, or before Roe v Wade. Which ine?

And smaller government? Until SS, Medicare, Defense is cut drastically will there not be smaller government. And try to cut either of the three and there will be (figuratively) fighting in the streets.

I do not agree with all aspects of the government, but there are many things that states cannot do - highways, immigration, financial regulations, FBI, FAA, etc. Yet the constant drum roll is for states rights.

Too bad we can't have a 4 year experiment and let any state that wants to to do their thing. No federal intervention, in Louisiana for hurricanes, in Iowa for flooding, in Oklahoma for tornadoes, no Farm relief. No nothing.